Analysis

The stock market price of Tianrui Cement crashed by a staggering 99% last week. On 9 April 2024, during the last 15 minutes of trading at the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, the price of shares in the company dropped from around US$0.64 to below US$0.01. Its market capitalisation swung from US$1.8bn to US$18m in a quarter of an hour. The cement producer then suspended trading shares the following morning. It said trading would remain halted until it made a formal announcement about the situation. At the time of writing that announcement is still forthcoming. The question on everyone’s minds is, “What happened?!”

On its website Tianrui Cement describes itself as “one of the 12 national cement enterprises supported by the Chinese government.” It is part of Tianrui Group and it listed itself on the Hong Kong Exchange in late 2011. By the end of 2020 it had 22 clinker production lines and 59 cement grinding units with a total cement production capacity of just under 58Mt/yr. It describes itself as the “leading clinker producer in Henan and Liaoning Provinces” and the ninth biggest clinker producer by capacity in the country.

Unfortunately, as reported by Global Cement Weekly earlier in April 2024, the cement market in China was tough in 2023. This has continued into the first quarter of 2024 with cement output falling by 12% year-on-year to 337Mt. Tianrui Cement, like many other China-based cement producers, reported falling sales and profits in 2023. Its revenue decreased by 29% year-on-year to US$1.09bn from US$1.58bn and it made a loss of US$87.6m compared to a profit of US$62m. Its cement sales volumes fell by 9% to 25.2Mt and it noted that the average price also fell by 22%. It blamed the fall in revenue on the lower volumes and prices. Profits and earnings suffered in turn as it couldn’t cut its costs fast enough.

Aside from the general poor state of the property market in China there has been little information about what actually happened to Tianrui Cement on 9 April 2024. Reuters reported speculation amongst financial sources that the company may have become subject to a margin call. In this situation an investor that has borrowed money to invest in shares has to provide additional funds if the value of the shares fall below a certain point. Bloomberg said that the controlling shareholder Li Liufa and his spouse jointly own approximately 70% of the company. It noted the risks of companies with a high concentration of shareholders and those that use shares as debt collateral. In this situation a large sale of shares could potentially trigger a panic as there might not be enough buyers.

Within China the Financial Associated Press (CLS) reported that three other companies listed on the Hong Kong Exchange had also experienced severe stock market volatility at the same time as Tianrui Cement. None of these other companies are in the building materials sector. Following the drop in its share price, Tianrui Cement told local media that the company was operating normally. Its spokesperson wondered whether the plunge in share value was due to small shareholders selling up. Coverage of local media by the China Cement Association explored the theory that the market was jittery about the poor state of the cement industry in China. Suspicions about the company’s debt structure were also raised.

From a western point of view the meteoric rise of the cement industry in China over the last 20 years has always carried the fear of a hard landing once the period of growth ended. The trick for the government and cement manufacturing is how to transition to lower levels of cement production without causing a recession. So, extreme stock volatility for a major cement producer in China is exactly what a cynical external observer might expect. China has a couple of exit routes up its sleeve though from the state-controlled nature of its economy, to how it approaches its net zero commitments, to the unreliability of its data, to exporting production capacity overseas and so on. This leaves us waiting to see what Tianrui Cement has to say to the market about what happened and what happens next. One share price crash for a cement producer might be forgivable. Two, however, might be seen as a sign of something else.

Heidelberg Materials announced this week that it is preparing to close its integrated cement plants at Beffes and Villiers-au-Bouin in France by October 2025. It framed the restructuring as a response to ‘a significant decline in cement sales in France’ and a plan to focus on low-carbon products. Unfortunately, local media reported that around 170 jobs will be lost at the two sites. The company says it is looking at ‘socially acceptable solutions’ including redeployment to other locations in the country.

Investment has been forthcoming from Heidelberg Materials France in recent years. It reminded everyone that it initiated a Euro400m scheme at its France-based subsidiary Ciments Calcia in late 2020. Most of this was earmarked towards a new production line at the Airvault plant, which is currently being built. Other schemes at the Beaucaire, Bussac-Forêt and Couvrot integrated plants followed. More recently, Heidelberg Materials launched a carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) project at Airvault, part of the GOCO2 initiative, with the aim of starting initial capture in 2030 with full 1Mt/yr capture planned later. What the company didn’t mention though was at the time of that 2020 investment it was also preparing to convert the integrated Gargenville plant into a grinding unit, stop white cement production at its Cruas plant with the intention of turning the site into a terminal and it wanted to reduce its workforce by around 140. To be fair to Heidelberg Materials though, it did have the same goal of reducing its specific net CO₂ emissions. The added detail this week was that the group aims to generate half of its revenue from sustainable products that are either low-carbon or circular by 2030.

Heidelberg Materials France is not alone with its ambitions for low-carbon products. Holcim notably opened in early 2023 what it said was the first calcined clay unit in Europe at its Saint-Pierre-la-Cour cement plant. Heidelberg Materials then followed in May 2023 with the announcement of a calcined clay project at its Bussac-Forêt cement plant. Other clay projects from Vicat, NeoCem and Neo-Eco have been reported since then. The other prominent France-based blended cement producer that has steadily been building its business in recent years is Hoffmann Green Cement. More general plant upgrade projects that are also worth mentioning include Eqiom’s (CRH) upgrade to its Lumbres plant in February 2024 and the ignition of a new kiln at Lafarge France’s Martres-Tolosane plant in October 2023. Both of these projects have been framed as driving sustainability.

Graph 1: Cement production in France, 2014 - 2022. Source: France Ciment.

Heidelberg Materials’ assessment about the poor state of the cement market has been confirmed by local media. Sales reportedly started falling in 2022, were down by 6% year-on-year in 2023 and further downward pressure is expected in 2024. Production data shown in Graph 1 above released by France Ciment, the national cement association, doesn’t really show what has been happening with sales. Over the last 20 years production hit a high of around 22Mt in the mid-2000s before settling around 16 - 17Mt/yr from 2015 onwards. The more telling trend, perhaps, has been the increase in CEM II blended cements from 50% in 2012 to 64% in 2022. Cement production may have stayed roughly the same over the last decade but it is using less clinker than it used to. Hence the pressure on companies like Ciments Calcia to reduce clinker capacity.

A further cost pressure facing cement producers in France is the impending end to the price cap on electricity scheduled by the end of 2025. The government enacted the scheme in late 2021 at the end of the Covid-19 pandemic, but then carried on as energy prices spiked following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. France Ciment lobbied in August 2023 for further protection for the sector using the argument that decarbonisation was not possible without electricity available for a reasonable price. It added that decarbonising the cement sector in France with carbon capture would cost around Euro3.5bn. Electricity prices started rising in February 2024 as part of the government’s phase out of the scheme.

Finally, 17 people were arrested on 5 April 2024 in connection with a demonstration at Lafarge France’s Val-de-Reuil ready-mixed concrete plant in Eure. Environmental activists reportedly trespassed on the site, according to local press, causing an estimated Euro450,000 in damages with acts such as spraying foam into machinery, ripping up bags of cement, breaking windows and more. The activists presented their actions as a response to both the environmental impact of cement and concrete production and the ongoing legal allegations about Lafarge’s actions in Syria in the early 2010s. Lafarge France’s La Malle integrated plant was also similarly targeted in December 2022 when around 200 activists stormed the site and caused damage to machinery and property. Lafarge’s response at the time was to remark that there was a feeling of misunderstanding given that the La Malle plant was piloting various decarbonisation methods.
All of this presents a febrile picture of the cement sector in France. Sales are down, electricity costs are set to go up and producers are switching to low-carbon cement products. Alongside this they are also closing clinker production plants but are also investing in new decarbonisation projects. At the same time environmental protestors have also been targeting cement and concrete plants and Lafarge’s association with its former actions in Syria appear to have made it more of a target than the other manufacturers. It is unsurprising then that Holcim, the parent company of Lafarge France, has raised the risk of damage to the group’s reputation, with both the general public and investors, should it fail to meet its targets. Reaching net zero was never going to be easy but setting unrealistic targets is increasingly not an option.

We turn to look at the Chinese cement sector now that the larger China-based cement producers have released their financial results for 2023. In summary, national output of cement has continued to fall and many of the bigger companies are reporting weakening sales and profits. Yet this trend appears to be slowing, with a few of the producers managing to grow revenue, profits and sales volumes.

Graph 1: Cement output in China, 2018 to 2023. Source: National Bureau of Statistics of China.

Data from the National Bureau of Statistics of China shows that cement output fell by 4.5% year-on-year from 2.11Bnt in 2022 to 2.02Bnt in 2023. This is a slower rate of decline than the 10.4% drop reported between 2021 and 2022. However, it is worth noting that the rate of decrease in output on a half-year basis fell strongly in the first half of 2023 but remained similar in the second half of the year. In its commentary, the China Cement Association (CCA) said that the country’s real estate development investment fell by 10% year-on-year to US$1.53tn.

Graph 2: Sales revenue from selected Chinese cement producers. Source: Company financial reports.

Graph 3: Sales volumes of cement and clinker from selected Chinese cement producers. Source: Company financial reports.

Unlike in 2022 the two graphs above show that not every cement producer has lost revenue or sales volumes of cement in 2023. CNBM chair Zhou Yuxian used the phrase ‘storms and challenges’ to describe the situation faced by the world’s largest cement company. He left president Wei Rushan to deliver the bad news that the cement industry as a whole faced “insufficient demand, weakening expectations and weakening off-peak season characteristics” along with surpluses and high costs. He said that the cement sector in China saw its profit fall by 50% to US$4.42bn in 2023, its lowest figure since the mid-2000s.

In comparison CNBM Group’s revenue fell by 10% year-on-year to US$29bn and profit by 52% to US$534m. This was principally due to losses from the group’s basic building materials division, the section that makes heavy building materials, including cement. Alongside this, it pushed on with its supply-side structural reforms, implemented staggered peak production and worked on sustainability initiatives. These included preparations for the national carbon emissions trading scheme. Anhui Conch’s results showed that it managed to increase its revenue but its sales volumes of cement dropped and its profits fell by 33% to US$1.48bn. It achieved the boost in revenue by growing its trading business.

Of the smaller companies covered here, only Huaxin Cement managed to grow its revenue in 2023. It appeared to pull this off by growing its concrete and aggregate business domestically whilst growing the business overseas at the same time. The share of its international business grew to 16% in 2023 from 13% in 2022. Major overseas acquisitions in 2023 included Oman Cement and InterCement’s subsidiaries in Mozambique and South Africa. More recently Huaxin Cement has also been reported by local media as the preferential bidder for InterCement’s business in Brazil, although no formal announcement has been made. Of the rest, Tangshan Jidong Cement, CRBMT and China Tianrui all reported declines in sales revenue and profits. Tangshan Jidong Cement did manage to grow its cement sales volumes, but reported heightened competition in the north and north-east of China where most of its plants are located.

With the first quarter results for 2024 on the way soon, the CCA has been bracing itself and the sector for more bad news. It noted that national cement prices during the last week of March 2024 were about 1% lower than during the same week in 2023. Prices were lower in East, Central and South China, although they had increased in Chengdu and Sichuan. The CCA is worried that a price war, either nationally or regionally, will make a bad situation worse. It has called on cement producers to accept that the slowdown of infrastructure development in the country has led to a decline in cement demand and that this is the new normal. Apart from the usual watchwords of ‘self-discipline,’ ‘overcapacity reduction’ and ‘supply-side reforms’ the association has suggested that cement companies look for growth internationally and look to the leadership of associations to help everyone adapt to the new market situation. China’s sales output of cement may be starting to stabilise, but the market has a way to go yet to adapt to the new reality.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) announced a US$1.6bn investment in the cement sector this week. The funding was part of a total of US$6bn for 33 projects in over 20 states to decarbonise energy-intensive industries also including chemicals and refining, iron and steel, aluminium and metals, food and beverages, glass, process heat applications and pulp and paper. The DOE was keen to link the money to “the President’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act.” Politics is never far away it seems! The projects are part of the Industrial Demonstrations Program, managed by DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED).

Table 1: Summary of US Department of Energy funding announced on March 2024 to decarbonise cement and concrete production

Table 1 above shows the main approaches each of the projects aim to use. The two most expensive ones involve carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at Heidelberg Materials US’ Mitchell cement plant in Indiana and National Cement’s Lebec plant in California respectively. In a complimentary press release Chris Ward, the CEO of Heidelberg Materials North America, said “This substantial federal funding investment will help create the first full-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage on a cement plant in the US.” The proposed CCS unit at the plant will capture around 2Mt/yr of CO₂ from 2030. If Ward’s forecast is accurate (and no one beats them to it), then Heidelberg Materials will likely have set up the first full-scale CCS units at cement plants in both North America and Europe. This will be a significant achievement. The National Cement project, by contrast, is a mixed bag of approaches to decarbonising cement production that follows the multi-lever approach advocated for in many of the industry net-zero roadmaps. It intends to use agricultural by-products such as pistachio shells, as alternatives fuels to lower the fuel-based emissions, calcined clay to lower the clinker factor and CCS to capture the remaining 950,000t/yr of CO₂ emissions.

The other projects either involve using calcined clay or substituting limestone with calcium silicate. The Summit Materials proposal is noteworthy because it aims to build four clay calcination units in locations in Maryland, Georgia and Texas. None of these appear to be near Summit’s (or Cementos Argos’) cement plants. This suggests that the company may be intending to use calcined clay in ready-mixed concrete production. The Roanoke Cement Company calcined clay project will be baseEuropead at its cement plant in Troutville, Virginia.

The remaining two grant recipients, Brimstone and Sublime Systems, will both test the companies’ different methods of manufacturing cement by using calcium silicate instead of limestone. Brimstone’s method produces ordinary Portland cement (OPC) and supplementary cementitious materials (SCM). The company said in July 2023 that its OPC met the ASTM C150 standards. However, the company has released less information about its actual process. Sublime Systems’ uses an electrolysis approach to create its ASTM C1157-compliant cement. It calls this ‘ambient temperature electrochemical calcination.’

Investment on the same scale of the DOE has also been happening in Europe. In July 2023, for example, the European Commission announced an investment of Euro3.6bn in clean tech projects to be funded from the proceeds of the European Union emissions trading scheme (ETS). This was the third call for large-scale projects following previous announcements of recipients in 2021 and 2022. Euro1.6bn of the third call funding went towards cement and refining projects including five cement and lime projects in Belgium, Croatia, Germany and Greece. The money granted for each of these schemes was in the region of Euro115 - 235m.

Both the US and Europe are throwing serious finance at the cement industry to try and kickstart the various pathways towards net zero. They are also doing it in different ways, with the US aiming to boost its economy by onshoring sustainable industry, and Europe hoping to fund its approach via carbon taxation. Government-driven decarbonisation investment for cement in other large countries and regions around the world appears to be lagging behind the US and Europe but these may spring up as net zero targets are set, roadmaps drawn up and government policy formulated. These places could also benefit from watching what works and does not work elsewhere first. Back in the US and Europe the next tricky part of this process will be bridging the gap between government subsidy and commercial viability.

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) is currently considering changing its name as part of a wider rebranding exercise. As the PCA’s president and CEO Mike Ireland puts it, “Portland cement no longer adequately represents the products PCA member companies manufacture, as they increasingly produce blended cements in today's environmentally conscious marketplace.” The exercise opens up a host of issues about the promotion of cement and concrete and the role of a trade association in the 21st century.

The reason the PCA holds its name is because ordinary Portland cement (OPC) became the most popular type of cement used to make concrete (and other building materials) in the second half of the 19th century. This continued in the 20th century without any issues. So naming a national cement association after the sector’s key product made sense at the time. The parent organisation that became the PCA was formed in 1902 and the PCA proper officially started in 1916 when cement producers met in Chicago and agreed to set up an expanded organisation.

One topic that was less of an issue in 1916, was considering a national cement association in an international context. Or in other words, should a national or regional cement association say where it is from in its name? Many associations do so elsewhere in the world but not all. Cembureau in Europe, the Cement Manufacturers’ Association in India and the Mineral Products Association in the UK for instance are three examples that do not. The PCA’s current name does not indicate where it is based and it has appeared to have coped for over 100 years. Curiously though, most of the suggestions that the PCA has put forward for its potential new name do include ‘America’ in some shape or form. Another connected problem is whether the general public in the US make the assumption that the PCA is a smaller group based in Portland, Oregon!

Mike Ireland points out another dilemma facing the PCA today with the rise in popularity of blended cements. The PCA, for example, worked on supporting the use of Portland Limestone Cement in the 2010s before lots of US producers started making it in the 2020s. To illustrate the scale of the change that this and other initiatives have created, United States Geological Survey (USGS) data shows that shipments of blended cements doubled from 26Mt in 2022 to just under 55Mt 2023. At the same time, shipments of Portland Cement fell by 37% year-on-year to around 52Mt from 83Mt. More blended cements were shipped in the US than OPC in 2023. So the PCA finds itself named after a minority cement product.

The other issue that Ireland touches upon is the environmental perception of cement by the general public and the problems for marketing, branding and advocacy this presents to a trade association. Simply put, it is far easier for the environmental lobby in developed economies to portray cement as ‘bad’ than it is for the cement sector to publicise the many small but incremental changes it has made or the monumental effect that cement and concrete have made upon human society over the last 150 years. Although it may not mean much to the wider public, to whom ‘cement is cement,’ the rise of blended cements in the US has handed the PCA the opportunity to differentiate cement into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ offerings. In this case high CO₂ emitting OPC becomes the old dirty product of the past and blended cements become clean shiny symbols of the future. It follows, therefore, that retaining the name of an old product for one of the biggest cement associations in the world might be considered unhelpful.

In some respects OPC and the PCA have become victims of their own success. Cement built the modern world and has become ubiquitous. So commonplace in most countries, in fact, that people outside of the building industry often fail to realise how crucial the stuff is. The tricky proposition for those marketing cement today is to somehow recognise the historical contribution that it has made to build our world whilst also conveying how it is changing to become more sustainable. Unfortunately for fans of OPC though this may mean dumping it from the name of the PCA.